Text 1: Wildlife biologist Dr. Amanda Foster supports wildlife corridors. "Connecting fragmented habitats allows animals to migrate, find mates, and access resources," Foster explains. "Corridors increase genetic diversity and help species adapt to climate change by enabling range shifts."
Text 2: Conservation critic Dr. Richard Blake questions corridor effectiveness. "While corridors sound intuitive, evidence of their success is mixed," Blake notes. "Some corridors become ecological traps, exposing animals to roads and predators. The vast resources required might be better spent protecting core habitat areas."
How would Blake (Text 2) most likely view Foster's claims about wildlife corridors?
As theoretically sound but potentially oversimplified in practice
As completely false and without scientific basis
As representative of outdated conservation thinking
As focused primarily on commercial rather than ecological interests
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the correct answer. Blake acknowledges corridors "sound intuitive" (theoretically reasonable) but notes "evidence of their success is mixed" and identifies practical problems (ecological traps, resource allocation).
- Evidence: Blake questions implementation, not the underlying logic.
- Reasoning: His concerns are practical (roads, predators, resources), not theoretical.
- Conclusion: Blake sees theory-practice gaps in corridor advocacy.
Choice B is incorrect because Blake doesn't claim corridors are completely false. Choice C is incorrect because Blake doesn't call the approach outdated. Choice D is incorrect because neither mentions commercial interests.